44 U.S.C. § 3509

Designation of central collection agency

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 44 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Director may designate a central collection agency to obtain information for two or more agencies if the Director determines that the needs of such agencies for information will be adequately served by a single collection agency, and such sharing of data is not inconsistent with applicable law. In such cases the Director shall prescribe (with reference to the collection of information) the duties and functions of the collection agency so designated and of the agencies for which it is to act as agent (including reimbursement for costs). While the designation is in effect, an agency covered by the designation may not obtain for itself information for the agency which is the duty of the collection agency to obtain. The Director may modify the designation from time to time as circumstances require. The authority to designate under this section is subject to the provisions of section 3507(f) of this subchapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1975–1988 · leading case: Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Otis R. Bowen, 846 F.2d 1449 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Otis R. Bowen, 846 F.2d 1449 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “44 U.S.C. § 3509 (1976). 3 The Director could disapprove the proposed collection of information if he or she determined it to be “unnecessary, for any reason.”

Pierce v. Apple Valley, Inc., 597 F. Supp. 1480 (S.D. Ohio 1984). “During the investigative phase, according to defendants, the plaintiff violated its own investigative regulations; violated the legal rights of the defendants; violated the Federal Reports Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3509 ; and colluded with a disgruntled former employee whom the…”

Shell Oil Co. v. Dep't of Energy, 477 F. Supp. 413 (D. Del. 1979). · cites it 2× “First, they claim that the EIA was required to obtain clearance of the FRS report from the General Accounting Office (“GAO”), rather than the OMB.”

A. O. Smith Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 396 F. Supp. 1108 (D. Del. 1975). “3 Some oral comments apparently were received by OMB on the proposal, but no statement of approval was forthcoming from OMB, as then required by law, 44 U.S.C.A. § 3509 (2 (1969), before Congress amended the Federal Reports Act on November 16, 1973 by enactment of Section 409 of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.